Any restrictions travelling into the West Bank from Jerusalem?

In light of the recent proposals to restrict foreigners' movement into the West Bank, and from the West Bank into Israel proper, (see "Israel introduces curbs on tourists" dated August 22 below) can anyone provide an update on whether:

• tourists flying into Tel Aviv are being asked to sign commitments not to enter Palestian areas without Army permission

• tourists can readily cross into the West Bank via the Jerusalem checkpoint and

• there are any new restrictions on tourists travelling around the West Bank once inside.

Thanks
Elizabeth

It's not very clear yet, because this new policy is illegal and Israel has been coming under huge pressure from the USA and the European Union since a few weeks. The different Israeli authorities also disagree on this. Meaning they don't really know themselves what they're doing. One of the ministries has issued a letter saying this policy was not implemented, accusing the international media of lying, while... some of the security officers at the borders, but not all of them, do implement it. It's a complete mess !

If you're planning on coming to Jerusalem, my advice would be that you tell them you want to visit Israel as a top priority, that you're gonna sleep in Israel all nights, but plan on visiting Bethleem for religious reasons and possibly Ramallah out of curiosity.

I have a friend who is planning to fly into TLV then make his way to the West Bank in order to stay with some Palestinian friends who know there. He plans to stay at the friends' home for 1 weeks before heading back into Israel to fly home from TLV. He doesn't intend to visit any Israeli cities or do sighting etc. The visit is purely to see our friends in the West Bank and to attend a wedding there..He's a British person with a British passport and no suspect stamps (such as Iran, Libya etc) in the passport.
I recently stayed with the same friends in the West Bank but I entered via the Allenby Bridge from Jordan so have no idea how the security staff at TLV will treat requests by travellers wanting to get to the WB but my friend has already booked his flight ticket to TLV! He found a good deal so went ahead and booked it! Is he likely to have a hard time being allowed to enter TLV for the purpose of getting to the WB? Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks..

#1 (catw)

+It's not very clear yet, because this new policy is illegal .......

Again you shoot from the hip calling something illegal. Against what specific law??
Israel is not preventing anyone from going to the WB. According to what I've heard they are saying if you go to the WB, don't come here. Any country can impose any entry policy it wants - however irrational. Just look at what Iran etc. do for those who have been to Israel. Also the other way round: Welcome to Israel, but then no WB. You make a choice just like choosing Iran or Israel.

Personally I think this new procedure is stupid, not illegal - just like what Iran and others do.

As far as my experience goes (but it predates the new policy so be a bit careful) entry checks at TLV, or at least those conducted by the border police rather than airport security, are relatively cursory: saying (lying) that you only intend to visit Israel should normally get you in without any further questions asked. On the other hand, as far as I've heard admitting you want to go to the WB is asking for trouble, so don't.

Also (pre-new policy, as of July) Israel was not systematically checking vehicles and people going from Jerusalem into the WB at the Qalandia checkpoint (Ramallah road), so this should also work even if they made you sign something when you first came in. Checks on the way back into Jerusalem were (at least for foreigners) also relatively cursory and definitely didn't involve any stamping or registration. As a last resort, foreigners can always use the settler road infrastructure to leave Jerusalem, make their way to a point where the settler and Palestinian road systems meet (there are plenty of those points, as well as 'joint' road sections) and switch there.

The most trouble you are likely to run into is when you fly back from TLV: the (airport security) checks before you are allowed to proceed to check-in are VERY thorough and you are highly unlikely to get away with any lies here. But since they obviously can't stop you from returning home (even if you did sign a pledge and 'broke' it) this means a few hours unpleasantly spent at the airport but nothing more.

#3 (a1): Israel may indeed impose any policy it wishes to in order to enter its own, sovereign, recognized territory. Since this does not include any territories occupied or annexed after the first international recognition of Israel in 1949, Israel may not impose restrictions on visiting any part of the WB including East Jerusalem (even though it may technically bar re-entry to Israel after this). So yes, the policy is illegal as well as stupid. Your argument also seems to justify Iran's policy (which is indeed legal but deplorable), which I assume you do not intend to do.

#3 (a1): this new Israeli policy is illegal first because it violates the Oslo agreements that Israel signed, second because it violates International Law. As an occupying power in the West bank and in East Jerusalem, Israel has an obligation to ensure freedom of movement to all people wishing to visit these areas. If she does not wishes to, Israel must let the Palestinians open their own airport in the West Bank and must withdraw all its illegal settlements and its army from the West bank and East Jerusalem, and it must let the Palestinians control their own border with Jordan.

The Israelis are currently having a very, very hard time with the USA and the European Union because of this new policy, and the general consensus in Jerusalem is that Netanyahu will bury it, but progressively in order not to lose face. Many Israeli politicians also disagree and are pretty worried. It had come to a point where the US diplomats were told by Netanyahu they were forbidden to travel to the West bank. Some Israeli politicians had to call him to tell him to chill out a little. The joke had it that Bibi planned next to build a wall around the US embassy to make sure they don't exit Tel Aviv.

#4 (thomasmaes)

Israel may indeed impose any policy it wishes to in order to enter its own, sovereign, recognized territory.

========================================
Israel does not have any "sovereign, recognized territory". All of former British Mandatory Palestine (BMP) is "disputed" territory., since no international border was ever drawn between Israel and the Palestinians. This includes all of Israel, the WB and Gaza. You are just having trouble internalizing this fact and, as such, write inaccurate information. For example, Israel has been begging all countries to locate their embassies in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, ever since Israel's creation. They steadfastly refuse. Why don't they have them in West Jerusalem? According to what you say, this is Israel's "sovereign, recognized territory", on the west side of the 1949 Armistice Line - the GL - (not "border" - there isn't one).

Since this does not include any territories occupied or annexed after the first international recognition of Israel in 1949,....

=======================================
Nonsense. Again, the GL is not an international border. Where does "Israeli territory" end and "Palestinian territory" begin? No one knows since an international border was never set.

Israel may not impose restrictions on visiting any part of the WB including East Jerusalem (even though it may technically bar re-entry to Israel after this).

===============================
As far as I understand it, Israel isn't barring anyone from the WB - just saying that if you go there, don't tour Israel.

So yes, the policy is illegal as well as stupid.

============================
Stupid, yes. Illegal, no (reasons given above).

Your argument also seems to justify Iran's policy (which is indeed legal but deplorable), which I assume you do not intend to do

=================================
I certainly do not justify Iran's policy. I said Israel's new policy is stupid and I do not agree with it, precisely for the reason that it is very similar to what Iran and others are doing vis-a-vis Israel.

Then notion of "disputed territory" does not exist. It is used by right-wing Israelis to justify their illegal occupation of the West Bank.

And yes, the borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories are well established, except for a few, limited areas which might be negotiatiable. These borders are the borders of 1967, also known as Green Line. Any agency of the United Nations will be happy to provide you with a detailed map showing these borders which are recognized by the international community.

#7 (catw)

Again you are ignoring the facts I present which don't correlate with what you are saying.

Then notion of "disputed territory" does not exist.

======================================
If you mean by that there is no official definition of "disputed" territory, then you are correct. That is why I put it is "quotes".

It is used by right-wing Israelis to justify their illegal occupation of the West Bank

=====================================
Nonsense. If so, then all Israelis are "right-wing" to you. It has been used by all governments - Left and Right - and by the majority of the population.

And yes, the borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories are well established,....

================================
Again you are saying the GL is a border - despite what I wrote.

except for a few, limited areas which might be negotiatiable.

================================
What???!! Either it is a recognized border or it isn't!! You can't have it both ways. There is only one GL - either it is all an "international border" (according to you) or it isn't. One cannot be "half pregnant". Sheesh, what illogical nonsense!

These borders are the borders of 1967, also known as Green Line. Any agency of the United Nations will be happy to provide you with a detailed map showing these borders which are recognized by the international community.

===================================
The UN is the last entity which recognizes the GL as a border! Look at their official stance on Jerusalem. They consider it a "corpus separatum" - i.e., a separate entity which belongs to no one. Therefore, since the GL runs through Jerusalem, they do not recognize it.

And here is a quote from the 1949 Armistice agreement with Jordan, which set the GL:

(From Article VI)"
"9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

In other words, this line is to be considered only something temporary and certainly not an international border. In any event, Jordan as an "occupying power", had no right to set any "international border" west of the Jordan River - its international boundary with BMP.

It is correct that the Green Line is not a recognized international boundary. On the other hand, Israel is a recognized sovereign state and the Palestinian Authority is a recognized sovereign entity (both entities, by the way, also recognize each other as such), both existing on the territory of pre-1948 mandatory Palestine. It is therefore from a legal point of view ludicrous to presume, like a1 and the Israeli government do, that the non-existence of a recognized international boundary between the two would allow one of both entities (Israel) to impose its will over the entire mandatory territory by force (this argument would also, for instance, make it legal for one of both Koreas to forcibly overrun the other). In addition, even though any party may theoretically claim whatever it wishes (even if they don't actually do so, see below), the Green Line is a UN-mandated armistice line between warring factions marking the maximum extent of recognition of Israeli sovereignty by the international community AND marking the principal starting point for any future negotiations governing the establishment of an international boundary between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

Furthermore, Israel itself does not consider the West Bank, apart from East Jerusalem, to be part of its sovereign territory: that is the last thing it would wish to do as it would then also have to recognize the local Palestinian population as Israeli citizens. Therefore there is really no disagreement: the West Bank is territory over which the sovereignty is disputed (or more accurately, over which there are no sovereignty claims from recognized sovereign states (as opposed to entities) as neither Israel nor Jordan claim it), under military occupation by Israel. Therefore, Israel has to respect the international conventions regarding military occupations, including, in this case, freedom of movement for non-local citizens.

The reason embassies are not located in West Jerusalem is that according to UNSC Res. 478 the international community recognizes no sovereignty of any country including Israel over any part of Jerusalem. This makes the argument stronger in the sense that it implies Israel has no right to bar entry to West Jerusalem either.

The "limited negotiable areas" refer to possible setting of a future international boundary between Israel and independent Palestine (to be created) away from the Green Line as negotiated between both parties, generally understood by the international community to be limited to fair and equal land swaps, mainly in order to allow a number of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank to fall on the Israeli side of the eventual border and in a few cases in order not to disrupt Israeli communications (eg Latrun area).

#9 (thomasmaes)

First of all, let me thank you for your obviously very well thought out and logical post. A breath of fresh air on this forum. :)

It is correct that the Green Line is not a recognized international boundary.

==============================
Thank you. That's what I keep saying continuously on this forum, but all too many here refuse to internalize this fact.

On the other hand, Israel is a recognized sovereign state and the Palestinian Authority is a recognized sovereign entity (both entities, by the way, also recognize each other as such), both existing on the territory of pre-1948 mandatory Palestine.

=============================================
Correct again. I never denied that part of the territory is Palestinian and part is Israeli. I just keep saying that the border between them (i.e., what is Palestinian and what is Israeli) has never been determined. For example, saying everything east of the GL is Palestinian is pure nonsense.

It is therefore from a legal point of view ludicrous to presume, like a1 and the Israeli government do, that the non-existence of a recognized international boundary between the two would allow one of both entities (Israel) to impose its will over the entire mandatory territory by force (this argument would also, for instance, make it legal for one of both Koreas to forcibly overrun the other).

===================================
Correct again. Except that Israel is currently not "imposing its will" over the entire former BMP territory. It de facto controls all the territory today (by default - all efforts to de-occupy it have failed, but that's another story), but it does not 'occupy' the people therein - at least not in the PA areas.

In addition, even though any party may theoretically claim whatever it wishes (even if they don't actually do so, see below), the Green Line is a UN-mandated armistice line between warring factions marking the maximum extent of recognition of Israeli sovereignty by the international community AND marking the principal starting point for any future negotiations governing the establishment of an international boundary between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

===================================
Can't argue with that. :) Very true.

Furthermore, Israel itself does not consider the West Bank, apart from East Jerusalem, to be part of its sovereign territory: that is the last thing it would wish to do as it would then also have to recognize the local Palestinian population as Israeli citizens.

=======================================
Very true as well.

Therefore there is really no disagreement: the West Bank is territory over which the sovereignty is disputed (or more accurately, over which there are no sovereignty claims from recognized sovereign states (as opposed to entities) as neither Israel nor Jordan claim it), under military occupation by Israel.

==========================
Only parts of the Palestinian population are under military occupation - basically those not under PA rule. And it is not "occupied territory" as such, since it doesn't fit the parameters outlined in the official definition of the term (see the relevant 1907 treaty).

Therefore, Israel has to respect the international conventions regarding military occupations, including, in this case, freedom of movement for non-local citizens.

==========================================
Subject to security considerations, OK. But the "non-locals" (tourists and citizens of other countries) can move freely within the WB - even under the new rules (which I personally think are stupid and unnecessary). But, according to the way I understand these rules, if they choose to "move freely" in the WB, then they can't "move freely" in Israel. Israel has every right to refuse entry to anyone in its sovereign territory - just like any other country in the world.

The reason embassies are not located in West Jerusalem is that according to UNSC Res. 478 the international community recognizes no sovereignty of any country including Israel over any part of Jerusalem.

===================================
Totally disagree as this just doesn't fit the facts.
UNSCR 478 was adopted by the UN in 1980. Why weren't almost all embassies in Jerusalem before 1980? The only ones which were there, were those of some Latin American countries and the Netherlands.

This makes the argument stronger in the sense that it implies Israel has no right to bar entry to West Jerusalem either.

========================================
Even if what you say is true, very real security considerations make this impossible. And you are just stressing once again that the GL is not recognized by anyone as an international boundary - something which I keep hammering away at in all my posts.

The "limited negotiable areas" refer to possible setting of a future international boundary between Israel and independent Palestine (to be created) away from the Green Line as negotiated between both parties, generally understood by the international community to be limited to fair and equal land swaps, mainly in order to allow a number of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank to fall on the Israeli side of the eventual border and in a few cases in order not to disrupt Israeli communications (eg Latrun area).

====================================
I agree with the above, except for your use of the term "illegal", since it is "disputed" territory, not "occupied" territory. Just to be clear as to where I stand, I disagree with most of Israel's WB "settlement" policy (but not all of it) - not because it is "illegal" (which it isn't) but because IMHO it isn't in Israel's best interest.

Long live the State of Israel!

bradco77, I most heartily agree with you. Long live BOTH the states of Israel and Palestine, and will subjects of both of them once and for all put their common delusion that the two are incompatible out of their minds...

Every now and then some hater of Israel comes to this traveling forum to spew his/hers anti-Israel venom. There is no possible argument or any fact that can convince the haters in the rightiousness of the democratic Israel surrounded by the brutal, dictatorial Arab regimes that are based on terror or corruption. Traveling to Israel is easy. Those who come with good intentions will have a good time anywhere they go. Those who don't may have problems.

I don't think Palestinian living in Palestinian territories occupied by Israeli army would agree that Israel is democratic with them.

#14 (shoshnah)

Quite correct. But Palestinians living in the "Palestinian territories" are not citizens of the Jewish state nor want to be. Also, the "Palestinian territories" are not part of the State of Israel so there is no reason they should be.

If "the Palestinian territories are not part of the State of Israel", why are there israeli settlements and israeli army in all of occupied Palestinian territories?

#16 (shoshnah)

That's an easy question: The West Bank was "occupied" before 1967 by the Jordanian army whose unprovoked attack in 1967 forced Israel to capture the area. Israel tried to "de-occupy" the area as per the Oslo accords, but the Palestinians refused to be "de-occupied" unless the Jewish state ceased to exist. The terror continued. Just look at what happened with Gaza. Israel totally withdrew from Gaza a few years ago - today there are no "settlements", no "occupation", no Israelis, no Jews there. However, the Palestinians continued to attack Israel from Gaza. Why? Because the Jewish state continued to exist. There was no other reason.

And what exactly is "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (OPT)? The 1949 Armistice Line (GL) is only a cease-fire line, not an internationally recognized border. What is Israeli and what is Palestinian? No one knows since a border has yet to be drawn and agreed upon. Therefore the "settlements" east of the GL are not necessarily in OPT.

"the Palestinians refused to be "de-occupied""

You're funny! All people fight always to end occupation, colonisation. Palestinians want to be decolonized, they wants their land. People in Africa were decolonized. Palestinians want to be decolonized too.

Gaza is occupied by Israel, yes. Israeli army does blockade of Gaza, and Israeli army goes to Gaza every day. Irael authorities dont let tourists go to Gaza. So Gaza is occupied. Read United Nations reports, read Amnesty International, read Human Rights Watch: they all say Gaza is occupied by Israeli army today.

#18 (shoshnah)

You write absolute nonsense. Do you actually know the definitions of "occupation" and "colonization"? Obviously not. You are just quoting the political opinions of some very bias anti-Israel groups.

You're funny! All people fight always to end occupation, colonisation. Palestinians want to be decolonized, they wants their land. People in Africa were decolonized. Palestinians want to be decolonized too.

================================
Look up the definition of "colonize" in any reputable English dictionary and you'll see that the term is extremely inappropriate. For one, the Jews were always part of the indigenous population. Second, they had no loyalty to a "mother country", etc. And, as I said, the Palestinians definitely want to end the occupation - but only if the Jewish state ceases to exist.

Gaza is occupied by Israel, yes. Israeli army does blockade of Gaza, and Israeli army goes to Gaza every day. Israel authorities dont let tourists go to Gaza. So Gaza is occupied.

=====================================
Do some research in international law. The only definition of "occupied territory" which exists in international law is in an obscure 1907 international treaty. This was the source used by the International Court of Justice. Read it. You'll see that there is no way to deduce that Gaza is now occupied according to that definition. Also, logically, Gaza isn't "occupied", as there are no Jews, Israelis or IDF there now, as I have mentioned above. Besieged, embargoed, etc., yes. But not "occupied".

Read United Nations reports, read Amnesty International, read Human Rights Watch: they all say Gaza is occupied by Israeli army today.

=====================================
All biased, anti-Israel organizations spewing their political agendas. Look up the definitions according to international law, instead of relying on bias political opinions from organizations pushing their anti-Israel agendas.

Gaza is occupied by Israeli army. They are Israeli tanks, soldiers, and bulldozers each day who enter in Gaza and do military operations.

#20 (shoshnah)

Gaza is occupied by Israeli army. They are Israeli tanks, soldiers, and bulldozers each day who enter in Gaza and do military operations.

=========================================
Complete gibberish. Where are you getting your information from??

The Israeli army (IDF), together with "settlers" completely evacuated the Gaza Strip years ago. The IDF (air force) attacks smuggling tunnels in response to mortars and rockets fired into Israel. Occasionally (definitely not every day!!) they go into Gaza for a specific military operation in response to some provocation, but they do not stay in the Gaza Strip - and they certainly don't have anything close to a permanent presence there ("occupation"). And if you'd bother to read international law, you'd see that "occupation" means a continuous presence, ruling directly over the local population - something the IDF hasn't done in years in Gaza.

From the 1907 Hague Convention (Article 42):
"+Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.+"

As I mentioned, this was the definition of "occupied territory" which was used by the ICJ.